RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[penbeast0]

you forgot Luck/Fate/Divine Favor

[semi-sentient]

Yeah, that statement seems confusing at best.

Someone brought the point up earlier about how LeBron maintained himself in the Cavs/Celtics series in 2010 and how it deflated his teammates, but this is a great example of how you can't quantify an intangible quality such as leadership. Had LeBron displayed any kind of leadership in that series it could have had an adverse affect on his teammates and in turn they would have likely played better or tried harder. Whether they win the series or not is another story, but you could SEE how his actions had a negative effect on the entire team. I guess you might quantify that by looking at wins/losses, but that's not what's happening here. People are looking at LeBron's stats and saying he had a very good series regardless when he eye test tells us otherwise (with a few exceptions). It's being ignored simply because it's not quantifiable, and that's a real shame because it takes away from the overall discussion.

[Sedale Threatt]

Yeah, I don't want to get too deep into the whole intangible argument, as it's such a slippery slope. Especially the whole "makes-his-teammates-better" quality, which is almost a total crock. But I defy anybody to watch Magic Johnson for any substantial stretch and argue that there's not something going on beyond the numbers. Call is charisma, passion, leadership, whatever. But it was there, and it mattered.

[Baller 24]

Intangibles are funny. Ronnymac, I think has stated it the best. WE as fans, as observers, and ultimate lovers of the game of basketball will NEVER understand intangibles. They're good to note for certain situations like Dochoops & semi stated, but you can't get too involved in that aspect. Unless either one of us was in the locker room, played on the court, sat on the bench, felt the feelings, chemistry, heart, and determination of players sitting on the bench by being part of a certain team, we will never know what it's like. Now I'll agree with Dochoops that there is more to this all than stats, I just don't get too involved in either aspect.

[Laimbeer]

Random thought - should we have seperate threads for the list vote and nomination? It could make for cleaner and more focused discussions.

[mysticbb]

Here is a quick list of 50 or so things you can see in every basketball game that effect the outcome and that stats can't measure accurately or assign proper credit.

That wasn't the question. ;)

He basically said that if any of those things have an impact on the game, they will at least show up in the result. Don't they?

[DocHoops]

^No

The result will mke no mention of those things.

The fact that they contribute to the final score is my point. The stats don't account for any of those things, can't attribute a value to the individuals contributiuons in those areas and yet they go along ways to deciding which team wins.

[mysticbb]

^No

The result will mke no mention of those things.

The fact that they contribute to the final score is my point. The stats don't account for any of those things, can't attribute a value to the individuals contributiuons in those areas and yet they go along ways to deciding which team wins.

Result = Final Score! ;)

[Laimbeer]

^No

The result will mke no mention of those things.

The fact that they contribute to the final score is my point. The stats don't account for any of those things, can't attribute a value to the individuals contributiuons in those areas and yet they go along ways to deciding which team wins.

Result = Final Score!

I think he's saying those things contribute to the final score but stats won't always give proper credit (or blame) to a particular player for them.

For example - I'm Amare, I get hit with 5 passes right at the basket and convert all five. But Kwame gets hit with 8 passes. He converts 5, the other three he fumbles, picks up, and kicks back out. The stats will give us equal credit.

[mysticbb]

I think he's saying those things contribute to the final score but stats won't always give proper credit (or blame) to a particular player for them.

I know what he is saying, that's why I said that this wasn't the question. The question was wether those things are showing up in the result (scoreboard, final score, whatever) or not. The question was not whether the boxscore stats can accurately give credit for those things to certain players.

For example - I'm Amare, I get hit with 5 passes right at the basket and convert all five. But Kwame gets hit with 8 passes. He converts 5, the other three he fumbles, picks up, and kicks back out. The stats will give us equal credit.

Not at all. It will show up in Stoudemire's OnCourt ORTG, because the team was more efficient with him than with Kwame Brown. ;)

[Rapcity_11]

A question for the stat fans - if these advanced stats are so much better at determining who is better, as opposed to expert opinion and conventional wisdom, shouldn't you be able to get rich predicting the outcome of games?

I always laugh when I hear questions like this.

Advanced stats (and all stats) tell us what happened in the past, not what will necessarily happen in the future. They aren't always predictive.

[Rapcity_11]

Oh, and Doc Hoops, most of the things on your list are captured in stats...

[kabstah]

Yeah, mystic and Rapcity have it right. It's not that leadership or heart (Seriously though, heart? Are we talking about a basketball team or the Planeteers?) don't exist, it's that they're not intangible. By definition it's impossible for anything that's not captured in stats to affect the outcome of a game. I don't mean figuratively impossible, like 33 year old Andre Miller clowning an NBA defense for 52 points, I mean literally impossible, like 0 + 0 = 1.

Of course it's not easy to determine the value of leadership or whatnot (and there is a real, non-arbitrary, quantitative value), but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. Too often I see posters hide behind the flag of "intangibles" or "the eye test" in order to push an agenda or prop up their favorite player without providing any verifiable, corroborative evidence. Yes, stats can be manipulated, misinterpreted, cherry picked, or sometimes outright incorrect, but at least there's a transparency of method there that leaves room for critique and discussion. Falling back to "intangibles" or "things that don't show in the stats" is often just another way of saying "because I think so, NYAH!" That doesn't lead to intelligent discourse so much as a pissing contest of Nuh uh!/Uh huh!

[Laimbeer]

I think he's saying those things contribute to the final score but stats won't always give proper credit (or blame) to a particular player for them.

I know what he is saying, that's why I said that this wasn't the question. The question was wether those things are showing up in the result (scoreboard, final score, whatever) or not. The question was not whether the boxscore stats can accurately give credit for those things to certain players.

Okay, can stats, even advanced stats, always accurately give credit for those things to certain players?

[DocHoops]

^Why bother. These guys are too stubborn to admit they are wrong.

They just try to twist the argument, like they do the numbers, to fit their point of view.

Let's get back to meaningful discourse like that of Baller24, Drza ec.

[kabstah]

Yeah, I don't want to get too deep into the whole intangible argument, as it's such a slippery slope. Especially the whole "makes-his-teammates-better" quality, which is almost a total crock. But I defy anybody to watch Magic Johnson for any substantial stretch and argue that there's not something going on beyond the numbers. Call is charisma, passion, leadership, whatever. But it was there, and it mattered.

The numbers paint Magic as the greatest floor general ever, and one of the very best players ever. Just a cursory glance reveals that Magic was the centerpiece of the greatest offensive dynasty ever, even in the face of KAJ's decline, and that when Magic retired the Lakers went from NBA finalists to irrelevant 0.500 team overnight while losing nearly 8 SRS points.

You're right in that there was something (whatever we want to call it) and that it mattered, but it most definitely reflected in even the most basic of metrics that we have.

[Laimbeer]

A question for the stat fans - if these advanced stats are so much better at determining who is better, as opposed to expert opinion and conventional wisdom, shouldn't you be able to get rich predicting the outcome of games?

I always laugh when I hear questions like this.

Advanced stats (and all stats) tell us what happened in the past, not what will necessarily happen in the future. They aren't always predictive.

Not always, but they should provide an edge that trumps conventional wisdom more often than not, right?

[mysticbb]

Okay, can stats, even advanced stats, always accurately give credit for those things to certain players?

No, they can't. But in the end we want to know the effect on the outcome of the game overall rather than specifics.

Not always, but they should provide an edge that trumps conventional wisdom more often than not, right?

Well, unfortunately Vegas is not using conventional wisdom. ;)

[Sedale Threatt]

The numbers paint Magic as the greatest floor general ever, and one of the very best players ever. Just a cursory glance reveals that Magic was the centerpiece of the greatest offensive dynasty ever, even in the face of KAJ's decline, and that when Magic retired the Lakers went from NBA finalists to irrelevant 0.500 team overnight while losing nearly 8 SRS points.

You're right in that there was something (whatever we want to call it) and that it mattered, but it most definitely reflected in even the most basic of metrics that we have.

Yeah, except that's not what I'm getting at. Court vision, genius hoops IQ, the extraordinary size for his position -- all of that can be measured. I'm talking about the verve and passion with which he devoured the game. How he made even a notorious grouch like Kareem -- another intangible, albeit a negative one -- realize that basketball is fun. How Michael Cooper marveled that he never saw him not ready to play, even at Utah on the back end of a 10-game road trip in the middle of February.

[DocHoops]

The numbers paint Magic as the greatest floor general ever, and one of the very best players ever. Just a cursory glance reveals that Magic was the centerpiece of the greatest offensive dynasty ever, even in the face of KAJ's decline, and that when Magic retired the Lakers went from NBA finalists to irrelevant 0.500 team overnight while losing nearly 8 SRS points.

You're right in that there was something (whatever we want to call it) and that it mattered, but it most definitely reflected in even the most basic of metrics that we have.

Yeah, except that's not what I'm getting at. Court vision, genius hoops IQ, the extraordinary size for his position -- all of that can be measured. I'm talking about the verve and passion with which he devoured the game. How he made even a notorious grouch like Kareem -- another intangible, albeit a negative one -- realize that basketball is fun. How Michael Cooper marveled that he never saw him not ready to play, even at Utah on the back end of a 10-game road trip in the middle of February.

Exactly the kind of post this forum is low on.

Great use of what you've read and learned but taking in other people's perspectives to give an example of separates a player like Magic from other 20-10 forces and more importantly, other superstar talents.